and here is the second part of the Vision demo:
http://www.osc.edu/~unpingco/Tutorial_5Nov.html
I find this a very useful discussion,
not only for the good overview,
but also for what is possible now and will be possible in the future.
It also started me thinking:
"why do so many people (including me until now) find these graphical
design packages,
like Vision / LabView so attractive / easy ? "
OK schematic designs in general read more easily than a piece of text,
for most people, watching TV is much more relaxing and attractive than
reading a book.
But the main reason seems to me "a priori knowledge"
When I saw the second demo the "LabView" shivers came over me:
it's becoming too complex, there's too much behind the blocks that can't
be seen.
Looking back at the first demo, I could also write that in one line of
text (if I had the right libraries):
Display_Image ( Rotate_Image ( Image_From_File ( 'demo.png' ) ) )
This line of code is easier to write then placing the blocks and
connecting them in Vision.
Still I (and possible many others) find the Vision approach much more
intuitive and much easier.
But there is another major difference than the graphics alone:
in the text version I need to know
- the exact name of each item: is it Rotate_Image, rotate_image,
SetRotateImage, or ...
- the exact number of inputs and outputs
- the range and units of each input parameter: is rotation in 360
degrees / 400 degrees or in radians ?
So I think we not necessarily need a graphical user interface,
but good libraries with easy to understand functions,
a priori given ranges and units, good help files etc.
So maybe not "graphical" is the magic word, but moreover "bricks" like
Lego uses them ;-)
Like to know what others think,
because I'm still very interested in getting non-programmers from
LabView to SciPy,
and until now I couldn't convince any of the current LabView teachers /
users :-(
cheers,
Stef